City Council Minutes 1995 10 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Bill Simmons, City Administrator, stated he did not recommend that. He stated that only if there are outstanding reasons and benefits to the City should that be done. He found no such special conditions with this annexation. Davidson called for the applicant's closing presentation. Durham felt this was a special circumstance, an enclave. He stated that they are annexing because it had been clearly indicated to them that upon annexation the Council will impose some kind of zoning similar to what Boulder County has and they will get one house on the property, which they did not feel was reasonable. At staffs suggestion, they are doing this as a way to get some kind of zoning on the property, the public could have the opportunity to comment on the PUD. If they do not get something they feel is acceptable, all parties would return to status quo. They felt this was the fairest way to do it. Mayer pointed out that RRR would be the lowest density zoning, which would be an average of one house/five acres, which is much different from the County's one house/35 acres. Barry Morris, owner of the property, reviewed the history of the project for the last two years. He explained that the only reason they want the water rights put into escrow was in case the City was in favor of this proposal, but the citizens wanted a referendum to overturn this. He pointed out that they started this project with 47 homes, they bought it down to 23, then to 15, then to 12, and now they are at nine. Davidson asked the City Attorney for an explanation of the City's obligation concerning the annexation agreement, the obligation of the City to annex this land, and the obligation the City would have toward zoning. Susan Griffiths, City Attorney, stated, with respect to the annexation, that this property is 95% surrounded by the City of Louisville and the property owner had the right to require the City of Louisville to annex the property. They do not have the fight to require the City to zone the property to any particular category. She recommended that the Council not approve the addendum before it at this meeting if they do not agree with the SF-R zoning, because it states that the owner's desire is to develop the property consistent with SF-R zoning. Mayer was in favor of the SF-R zoning on the land east of McCaslin. He felt that, if SF-R zoning were on the property west of McCaslin, it would set a bad precedent for all of the land west of McCaslin. Lathrop stated that this is a much better proposal than any others that have been presented. He felt that what is being passed is entirely reasonable. If the PUD will follow the guidelines and the intentions that have been stated, it also will meet the desires of the City.